Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 05:20:49 PM

Title: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 05:20:49 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A federal judge Monday rejected Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s request to block part of the federal health care overhaul that requires the arts and craft supply company to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.

In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.   http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMgz0jKQy6X01PY8MQAU3o6xiEnw?docId=0f89001dfe504df7b0be8f565e9537fe (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMgz0jKQy6X01PY8MQAU3o6xiEnw?docId=0f89001dfe504df7b0be8f565e9537fe)
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: kramarat on November 19, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
You must be referring to the old fashioned, outdated constitution. The new constitution says that the government will have the final determination in all matters............including the free exercise of religion.

Anything pertaining to Sharia law is okay. Ancient Christian principles are no longer deemed acceptable.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: valjean on November 19, 2012, 05:55:31 PM
Complete BS. I am so sick of this government; calling them unscrupulous rogues would seem to be both an understatement and a compliment. This is simply evil; America was supposed to be the last refuge for those who want to be free, now America is a walking contradiction. We can no longer claim to be free without qualification or equivocation, we retain freedom only insofar as we are free to obey the state no matter how criminal and corrupt their decrees are.

It certainly says all you need to know when the government of Iran does not force it's religious minorities to pay for things they find immoral through taxation and mandated insurance purchase for their employees, and yet the US government usurps the authority to enforce such an immoral law.

We are becoming less and less free by the day. The concepts of freedom, peace, justice, have been totally turned upside down in this new America and it is a total disgrace. No longer does freedom mean that you have a right to self determination, a right to follow your faith and conscience without government oppression. In this new America freedom means you are free to serve the state without being "hindered" by your religion, your conscience, the use of reason, and so on. We are being governed by despots who have no regard for personal liberty or the law, they have no legitimacy when they make judgements such as this.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
When government tramples on basic matters of conscience, they my find these businesses closing down rather than contributing to child murder.

Algore was actually right, "Everything that's up is down and everything that's down is up."

These illegitimate judges have ZERO respect for the Constitution they swore to uphold.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: valjean on November 19, 2012, 06:01:13 PM
Quote from: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
When government tramples on basic matters of conscience, they my find these businesses closing down rather than contributing to child murder.

Algore was actually right, "Everything that's up is down and everything that's down is up."

These illegitimate judges have ZERO respect for the Constitution they swore to uphold.

And yet how are we supposed to find a redress for these grievances? We cannot get justice from the president, we cannot get justice from the congress, we cannot get justice from the courts, we cannot even get justice from the principle of majority rule because the majority is either in favor of or ignorant to this sort of thing, which leaves the oppressed minority trampled underfoot by every level of government and the people itself. This is not what our founders had in mind, we are being run by tyrants.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 06:36:23 PM
To initiate impeachment proceedings, there exist three options, each of which rests with us--We, the People.

    Option One: Impeachment proceedings of a federal official can be
   commenced by a member of the federal House of
   Representatives.

    Option Two: Impeachment proceedings can also be triggered by
   a member of the State House of Representatives.

    Option Three: Impeachment proceedings can be recommended by
      any U.S. citizen. In other words, by you or me,  or
      any other American citizen.

How to impeach a judge (http://www.loupainter.com/Impeach.html)
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: kramarat on November 19, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
Anything pertaining to Sharia law is okay.
Oh KRAM, you have gone way out into space this time.

Are you insinuating that Obama care is somehow Sharia law or that birth control is somehow compatible with sharia Law?

Like I have said, you're in need of a reality check.

QuoteAncient Christian principles are no longer deemed acceptable.
The US constitution is not based in Ancient Christian Principles, hate to break it to you.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 07:57:18 PM
Quote from: valjean on November 19, 2012, 05:55:31 PM
and yet the US government usurps the authority to enforce such an immoral law.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The above passage should be a little familiar to some of you.
NOTE this part.
Quotepromote the general Welfare

You see, that could be interpreted as giving the government the job to "promote the general Welfare"

Healthcare fits that description.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: valjean on November 19, 2012, 08:14:01 PM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 07:57:18 PM
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The above passage should be a little familiar to some of you.
NOTE this part.
You see, that could be interpreted as giving the government the job to "promote the general Welfare"

Healthcare fits that description.



Ah, the general welfare clause, "promote the general welfare."  If a picture is worth a thousand words, the general welfare clause in the hands of the left is worth an infinite amount of words. According to you Healthcare fits that description, please expand on your thought process and tell us why? Better yet, perhaps you could provide for us something that does not conceivably apply to such a loose interpretation of the general welfare clause.

We are living in a digital age, the internet is needed for all sorts of necessary interaction both in social and economic spheres, with this in mind,  to promote the general welfare of the American people, the government should at tax payer expense provide high speed internet in every home in America.

In addition to providing free high speed internet, the government should also provide one car for every family so they can go to work, as well as a winter jacket to all citizens living in states with colder climates, after all it promotes the general welfare of the people does it not?

You think I am being outrageous? Then explain to my why the government is giving out cell phones at tax payer expense? You can be sure the general welfare clause was used as justification.


My post was aimed specifically at the contraceptive issue, if an employer due to his religious faith does not believe that using or providing abortifacient contraception to his employees is moral and against his religion he is within his rights under the 1st Amendment of the constitution to not do so. The 1st Amendment trumps the bastardization of the general welfare clause. The general welfare clause, a total of four ambiguous words cannot deprive you of rights specifically and explicitly protected in the bill of rights.

Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 08:27:52 PM
Quote from: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
When government tramples on basic matters of conscience, they my find these businesses closing down rather than contributing to child murder.
Here you go again.
Equating contraception with child murder, is the whole attitude that lost you the election.
Time to join the 21st century.

The ISSUE is not birth control, it is "preventative medicine".
Birth control is used to control women's menstrual cycle among other health issues.

Preventative medicine, IS the best way to control health care cost.

Quote
These illegitimate judges have ZERO respect for the Constitution they swore to uphold.
Can't wait for Obama to appoint some more judges.
Get rid of some of these wakadoodles judges.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 09:28:41 PM
Your PERSONAL opinion on any subject, or your lectures to us about what century it uis,, as if morality is dictated by the century is meaningless.

The Constitution is clear except to you Socialists.

Congress cannot compel a person, or an organization to violate their matters of conscience.

This "wackadoodle judge" needs to be removed.

And those who don't understand the Constitution need to have their voting rights revoked.  You people are just too stupid to be entrusted with the vote.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 11:07:54 PM
Quote from: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 09:28:41 PM
or your lectures to us about what century it uis,,as if morality is dictated by the century is meaningless.
Actually morality IS dictated by the century, YAWN.

A hundred years ago, men and women barely held hands on the first date.
Today,
where they have sex is the question and who has protection.

Different time different morals.

Like I have been telling you guys.
Reality Check Time
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: kramarat on November 20, 2012, 03:00:36 AM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 07:44:59 PM
Oh KRAM, you have gone way out into space this time.

Are you insinuating that Obama care is somehow Sharia law or that birth control is somehow compatible with sharia Law?

Like I have said, you're in need of a reality check.
The US constitution is not based in Ancient Christian Principles, hate to break it to you.

http://concess.blogspot.com/2010/08/american-judge-applies-sharia-law.html (http://concess.blogspot.com/2010/08/american-judge-applies-sharia-law.html)

http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam (http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/inside-the-fl-appeals-ruling-upholding-islamic-law-in-mosque-case/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/inside-the-fl-appeals-ruling-upholding-islamic-law-in-mosque-case/)

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/655-pennsylvania-judge-imposes-islamic-law-on-assaulted-parade-goer.html (http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/655-pennsylvania-judge-imposes-islamic-law-on-assaulted-parade-goer.html)

This isn't about abortion. It's about government appointed judges denying religious freedom.

Here you go again. I didn't say that the constitution was based on ancient Christian principles, dim bulb. I said that ancient Christian principles are no longer deemed acceptable. This judge just intentionally told a group of people that they are not free to adhere to the tenets of their religion. Instead they must follow the state mandate.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: valjean on November 20, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 11:07:54 PM
Actually morality IS dictated by the century, YAWN.

A hundred years ago, men and women barely held hands on the first date.
Today,
where they have sex is the question and who has protection.

Different time different morals.

Like I have been telling you guys.
Reality Check Time

What you have essentially said here is that you believe in nothing except that which is prevalent in the time and society in which you live. How can you effectively argue for or against anything with this in mind?

The points you are making are largely incoherent or just poor argument. We go from talking about the first amendment and people being protected from the government forcing them to go against their morals, and now you are trying to sell this point that morality definitively amorphous without providing any reason for thinking this is the case.

Moreover it seems that the essential reason you brought this up is to suggest that the government should enforce these changing morals, become the morality police disallowing those who want to follow their conscience, and forcing them to align with the morals of the state.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Yawn on November 20, 2012, 07:04:12 AM
What he (or this judge) doesn't want to accept is that HIS personal feelings about another's beliefs is IRRELEVANT to the Constitution.  If that person's beliefs don't violate the rights of another, the Godvernment has NO RIGHT to compel a citizen to violate their conscience.  This is BASIC to our AMERICAN heritage and his responses reveal WHY we are in the mess we are today.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: kramarat on November 20, 2012, 07:07:16 AM
Quote from: valjean on November 20, 2012, 06:52:54 AM
What you have essentially said here is that you believe in nothing except that which is prevalent in the time and society in which you live. How can you effectively argue for or against anything with this in mind?

The points you are making are largely incoherent or just poor argument. We go from talking about the first amendment and people being protected from the government forcing them to go against their morals, and now you are trying to sell this point that morality definitively amorphous without providing any reason for thinking this is the case.

Moreover it seems that the essential reason you brought this up is to suggest that the government should enforce these changing morals, become the morality police disallowing those who want to follow their conscience, and forcing them to align with the morals of the state.

This pretty much sums it up...........

A hundred years ago, men and women barely held hands on the first date.
Today,
where they have sex is the question and who has protection.

Different time different morals.


And yes, it appears that justthefacts believes that it is the job of government to impose these new morals, whether we like it or not.

So far it's working out quite well:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm)

This link is close, but not quite realistic, since shacking up is now part of the new morality.

http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html (http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html)

As the liberal grownups are pushing the new morality, our young people are paying the price with very high incidences of STDs.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/age.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/age.htm)

The new morality is great..................as long as it's ugly underbelly is hidden from view.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: walkstall on November 20, 2012, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: kramarat on November 20, 2012, 07:07:16 AM
This pretty much sums it up...........

A hundred years ago, men and women barely held hands on the first date.
Today,
where they have sex is the question and who has protection.

Different time different morals.


And yes, it appears that justthefacts believes that it is the job of government to impose these new morals, whether we like it or not.

So far it's working out quite well:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm)

This link is close, but not quite realistic, since shacking up is now part of the new morality.

http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html (http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html)

As the liberal grownups are pushing the new morality, our young people are paying the price with very high incidences of STDs.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/age.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/age.htm)

The new morality is great..................as long as it's ugly underbelly is hidden from view.



You have to love the new morals......

"WASHINGTON — There's a new push to make testing for the AIDS virus as common as cholesterol checks."


"The draft guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are the latest recommendations that aim to make HIV screening simply a routine part of a check-up"
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: mdgiles on November 20, 2012, 10:32:11 AM
The Preamble to the Constitution is just that, the preamble to the Constitution. Why do left loons keep reading into it powers that were never there. If the Preamble says all they say it does; WHY DID THEY BOTHER TO WRITE THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION. YOU KNOW, THE ARTICLES THAT ACTUALLY LAY OUT WHAT THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE. The idea that the preamble is an actual grant of powers is insane. The Preamble simply states why we bothered to write all the other stuff, nothing more nothing less.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 20, 2012, 09:15:19 PM
Quote from: kramarat on November 20, 2012, 03:00:36 AM
http://concess.blogspot.com/2010/08/american-judge-applies-sharia-law.html (http://concess.blogspot.com/2010/08/american-judge-applies-sharia-law.html)
But this one was resolved like this:
"Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."

I would also bet MONEY that the judge is a Religious Conservative.  He was also appointed by Gov Christie for life time position.  Good job conservatives!

NO Liberal would allow this.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/#ixzz2CpZp7CMG (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/#ixzz2CpZp7CMG)
"

Quotehttp://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam (http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/inside-the-fl-appeals-ruling-upholding-islamic-law-in-mosque-case/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/inside-the-fl-appeals-ruling-upholding-islamic-law-in-mosque-case/)

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/655-pennsylvania-judge-imposes-islamic-law-on-assaulted-parade-goer.html (http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/655-pennsylvania-judge-imposes-islamic-law-on-assaulted-parade-goer.html)
None of these foil hat blogs are  "sources".

I thought you guys wanted to deal in facts, not talking points.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: kramarat on November 21, 2012, 05:21:40 AM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 20, 2012, 09:15:19 PM
But this one was resolved like this:
"Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."

I would also bet MONEY that the judge is a Religious Conservative.  He was also appointed by Gov Christie for life time position.  Good job conservatives!

NO Liberal would allow this.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/#ixzz2CpZp7CMG (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/#ixzz2CpZp7CMG)
"
None of these foil hat blogs are  "sources".

I thought you guys wanted to deal in facts, not talking points.

I'm quite sure that the court cases mentioned in these "foil hat" blogs, are real cases. If you've got evidence that these cases never happened, or that the results were different than what is contained in the links, please present it.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Cryptic Bert on November 21, 2012, 11:06:51 AM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 20, 2012, 09:15:19 PM
But this one was resolved like this:
"Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."

I would also bet MONEY that the judge is a Religious Conservative.  He was also appointed by Gov Christie for life time position.  Good job conservatives!

NO Liberal would allow this.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/#ixzz2CpZp7CMG (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/#ixzz2CpZp7CMG)
"
None of these foil hat blogs are  "sources".

I thought you guys wanted to deal in facts, not talking points.

If you took the time to actually read you would have noticed the blogs contain many many traditional sources. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Yawn on November 21, 2012, 11:24:20 AM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 20, 2012, 09:15:19 PM
But this one was resolved like this:
"Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."

I would also bet MONEY that the judge is a Religious Conservative.  He was also appointed by Gov Christie for life time position.  Good job conservatives!

NO Liberal would allow this.

Read more:
"
None of these foil hat blogs are  "sources".

I thought you guys wanted to deal in facts, not talking points.
(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/#ixzz2CpZp7CMG)

Sorry, but they are legitimate sources.  Just because the left has a problem with real news doesn't make them illegitimate.  It's not your place to decide which news sources are "legitimate."  It's your place to disprove the facts that you disagree witn.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Darth Fife on November 21, 2012, 07:14:37 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with the 1st Amendment.

It has everything to do with the Federal Government exercising authority which isn't granted to it by the Constitution - period! Despite what Chief Justice Roberts said, Obamacare is an unconstitutional law (one of many!).

The agreement between Hobby Lobby and their health insurance company is a private contract. It is none of the Federal Government's damned business what kind of benefits are provided to their employees.

Likewise, the working relationship between Hobby Lobby and its employees is a private matter! If an employee or potential employee doesn't like the kind of health care insurance provided by the company, they can go work somewhere else.

Is that so effing hard to understand?

Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 21, 2012, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: kramarat on November 21, 2012, 05:21:40 AM
I'm quite sure that the court cases mentioned in these "foil hat" blogs, are real cases. If you've got evidence that these cases never happened, or that the results were different than what is contained in the links, please present it.

You seem to be assuming these right wing, religious, nut job judges, who side with the MALE, due to their religious convictions,
ARE SOME HOW LIBERAL and Obama's secret evil plan.

You know how dumb that IS?

The judge I cited was APPOINTED BY A GOP Governor!

You guys like to ignore certain details, to make your WEAK points.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 21, 2012, 10:17:00 PM
This is one is a retarded law suit!
http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam (http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam)

Anyone read it?

SHOCKING I SAY!  Just Shocking.

You guys don't get around much.

Sharia-compliant financing is COMMON in vast amounts of the world.
It's banking without the Predator attitude.  It makes banks BE NICE.

Below is what the court decided, based on the retarded lawsuit brought by some right wingers who wanted to stir up the
MUSLIMS ARE COMING! sentiments

Quote
the court stated the following: "In the absence of evidence showing that AIG's development and sale of SCF products has resulted in the instruction of religious beliefs for the purpose of instilling those beliefs in others or furthering a religious mission, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer could conclude that AIG has engaged in religious indoctrination by supplying SCF products."

NOT TO MENTION, AIG was bailed out by GW Bush!
So if it's an administration who is coddling Islam, its a GOP one.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 21, 2012, 10:28:51 PM
Ok here we go with another doosy.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/inside-the-fl-appeals-ruling-upholding-islamic-law-in-mosque-case/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/inside-the-fl-appeals-ruling-upholding-islamic-law-in-mosque-case/)
QuoteTo recap, former trustees of the Islamic Education Center of Tampa sued the mosque after claiming that they were unfairly removed from their positions.
When the case made its way to court,
Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen (a Republican nominated by former Gov. Jeb Bush)
ruled that "ecclesiastical Islamic law" would be cited in the case.

This one is AGAIN a REPUBLICAN judge appointed by a REPUBLICAN Gov.  No LIBERALS HERE GUYS.

You factual dudes didn't READ the article about
THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING!??

Not really the case. These Muslims are already here and want justice in the US legal system.

This story is just More pathetic right wingers, trying to stir up the Anti Muslim sentiment.
Oh wait, it's THE BLAZE as the "source".

Told you guys these "sources" sucked.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 21, 2012, 10:41:55 PM
I am pretty sure this one is the sign of the Apocolypse!

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/655-pennsylvania-judge-imposes-islamic-law-on-assaulted-parade-goer.html (http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/655-pennsylvania-judge-imposes-islamic-law-on-assaulted-parade-goer.html)

Seriously guys.
this is such a NON "Sharia Law Is Coming to America" story!

Conservatives Grasping at straws, is a better description.
This, MUSLIMS ARE COMING, happened many months ago.
I read several other articles about it.

Here is a more factual account of what transpired.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happened_113293.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/an_atheist_a_muslim_and_a_judge_what_really_happened_113293.html)
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Cryptic Bert on November 22, 2012, 01:01:48 AM
Canadians are fun. Not bright apparently but fun none the less..
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: kramarat on November 22, 2012, 03:28:33 AM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 21, 2012, 09:59:24 PM
You seem to be assuming these right wing, religious, nut job judges, who side with the MALE, due to their religious convictions,
ARE SOME HOW LIBERAL and Obama's secret evil plan.

You know how dumb that IS?

The judge I cited was APPOINTED BY A GOP Governor!

You guys like to ignore certain details, to make your WEAK points.

You seem to be assuming that there aren't libs in the GOP. :blink:

You don't really pay much attention to what's talked about on here, huh?
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 08:23:32 AM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 22, 2012, 01:01:48 AM
Canadians are fun. Not bright apparently but fun none the less..
This is the Boo Man's attempt at debate?

I refute the entire list of Sharia law Hysteria links and THIS is your response?

The level of intellect is........
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 08:41:01 AM
Quote from: kramarat on November 22, 2012, 03:28:33 AM
You seem to be assuming that there aren't libs in the GOP.
DUH! 
THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.  A lib and a GOP have NOTHING in common.
So I can assume you don't know any LIBERALS.

care to name some Libs who are GOP?

Some Lib leaning people can be LIBERTARIAN, but they have a conservative streak that Full LIBERALS will not tolerate.

NOT TO MENTION, the judge in that article IS an admitted RELIGIOUS zealot!
You know, the kind of guy who thinks women are second class people and should DO what the Male Tells them to DO!

QuoteYou don't really pay much attention to what's talked about on here, huh?

Unlike you cons, I read the thread. BUT, most of which, is SO off the wall, batshitcrazy, I don't bother to comment.

When you guys try to reinvent history, I get involved.
My job is to keep you cons based in REALITY.

Reality, IS one of YOUR problems KRAM.  You need to pay special attention.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Yawn on November 22, 2012, 09:52:17 AM
QuoteNOT TO MENTION, the judge in that article IS an admitted RELIGIOUS zealot

Care to back that up with a quote?  Being a FAR Left zealot yourself, I'm betting he never said "I am a Religious ZEALOT"
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 10:50:07 AM
Quote from: Yawn on November 22, 2012, 09:52:17 AM
Care to back that up with a quote?  Being a FAR Left zealot yourself, I'm betting he never said "I am a Religious ZEALOT"

I rip all your links to shreds
AND this is your come back?

What about the part that HE is REPUBLICAN and appointed FOR LIFE by Christie!

You want me to prove he's religious?
Anyone who is religious,
is a ZEALOT, in my opinion, and show a certain lack of grey matter in general.

your lack of intellect is showing, YAWN.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: valjean on November 22, 2012, 11:10:27 AM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 10:50:07 AM
I rip all your links to shreds
AND this is your come back?

What about the part that HE is REPUBLICAN and appointed FOR LIFE by Christie!

You want me to prove he's religious?
Anyone who is religious,
is a ZEALOT, in my opinion, and show a certain lack of grey matter in general.

your lack of intellect is showing, YAWN.

What you seem to be saying is that because the judge who issued the ruling is religious, and a Republican appointed by Chris Christie (also a Republican), that this somehow discredits our indignation at the ruling? Do you not see how stupid this is? John Roberts was also appointed by a Republican in George W. Bush, and yet John Roberts approved of the individual mandate which is in and of itself antithetical to the constitution. In such an instance we have every right to be indignant at the ruling, we stand for the constitution not people who happen to be appointed by our party and who happen to be more conservative justices.

I seriously have to question how old you are, the maturity or lack thereof that you display on this forum is akin to a hyperactive child.  Throughout this thread I have dismantled every claim you have made; you have not responded once, and I can see why. It seems you are utterly incapable of forming some sort of organized body of knowledge about your positions that is consistent with other things you have said. You fail to examine the ultimate ends of claims you make, something I had pointed out earlier in the thread, and without much surprise you could not seem to procure an answer. I highly suggest you get off your high horse before you fall off, and inflict further harm to your pride.

Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: walkstall on November 22, 2012, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: valjean on November 22, 2012, 11:10:27 AM
What you seem to be saying is that because the judge who issued the ruling is religious, and a Republican appointed by Chris Christie (also a Republican), that this somehow discredits our indignation at the ruling? Do you not see how stupid this is? John Roberts was also appointed by a Republican in George W. Bush, and yet John Roberts approved of the individual mandate which is in and of itself antithetical to the constitution. In such an instance we have every right to be indignant at the ruling, we stand for the constitution not people who happen to be appointed by our party and who happen to be more conservative justices.

I seriously have to question how old you are, the maturity or lack thereof that you display on this forum is akin to a hyperactive child.  Throughout this thread I have dismantled every claim you have made; you have not responded once, and I can see why. It seems you are utterly incapable of forming some sort of organized body of knowledge about your positions that is consistent with other things you have said. You fail to examine the ultimate ends of claims you make, something I had pointed out earlier in the thread, and without much surprise you could not seem to procure an answer. I highly suggest you get off your high horse before you fall off, and inflict further harm to your pride.


(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi703.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww39%2Fsue3843%2Fouch.gif&hash=7ee0b5dd358ed854408707812095115de86a9f51)

                                               (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi93.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl60%2Fvenus160%2FFunny%2FOUCH.gif&hash=ed579bb442886441f87f2835ef5027acf2002717)
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 12:04:21 PM
Quote from: valjean on November 22, 2012, 11:10:27 AM
What you seem to be saying is that because the judge who issued the ruling is religious, and a Republican appointed by Chris Christie (also a Republican), that this somehow discredits our indignation at the ruling?

Do you not see how stupid this is? John Roberts was also appointed by a Republican in George W. Bush, and yet John Roberts approved of the individual mandate which is in and of itself antithetical to the constitution. In such an instance we have every right to be indignant at the ruling, we stand for the constitution not people who happen to be appointed by our party and who happen to be more conservative justices.
Since every other WORD from the conservative mouths IS against Liberals and HOW they are ruining the country, that is how one gets the feeling that YOU cons are bias.
YOUR indignation is not so much about the ruling.
YOUR HYSTERIA is about Sharia Law and the Muslims taking over America!
This would only be conservative hysteria.
SO, I was pointing out that CONSERVATIVES are ones that are involved in these case, so you cons GET some REALITY about conservatives!
QuoteThroughout this thread I have dismantled every claim you have made; you have not responded once, and I can see why.
Actually, you have only responded to ONE of my posts (on page one).
You babbled about morality and what year it is.  made little sense and didn't warrant a response.

so your claim that you DISMANTLED everything I have posted, would have me wondering if you are delusional.

maybe you could point out some "dismantling" of my posts for me.

I don't see you addressing the SHARIA LAW IS COMING, that I dismantled for YAWN.

QuoteI highly suggest you get off your high horse before you fall off, and inflict further harm to your pride.
You like to pontificate a good deal, while not saying much of a factual nature.

Seems it's YOU on Your high horse that needs to be concerned about a fall.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Darth Fife on November 22, 2012, 05:36:19 PM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 21, 2012, 10:17:00 PM
This is one is a retarded law suit!
http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam (http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam)

Anyone read it?

SHOCKING I SAY!  Just Shocking.

You guys don't get around much.

Sharia-compliant financing is COMMON in vast amounts of the world.

So is polygamy in one form or another. Do you support polygamy?

QuoteIt's banking without the Predator attitude.  It makes banks BE NICE.

Well, golly! Let's just replace Ben Bernanke with an Ayatollah!  :rolleyes:

QuoteBelow is what the court decided, based on the retarded lawsuit brought by some right wingers who wanted to stir up the
MUSLIMS ARE COMING! sentiments
NOT TO MENTION, AIG was bailed out by GW Bush!
So if it's an administration who is coddling Islam, its a GOP one.

I don't think you will find many defenders of "W" here!

Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 07:59:53 PM
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 22, 2012, 05:36:19 PM
So is polygamy in one form or another. Do you support polygamy?
Oh really.
How many countries have legalized polygamy?

Besides, I think "Nice Banks" and Polygamy, are not on the same level, even in conservative land
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: valjean on November 23, 2012, 11:18:08 AM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 12:04:21 PM
Since every other WORD from the conservative mouths IS against Liberals and HOW they are ruining the country, that is how one gets the feeling that YOU cons are bias.
YOUR indignation is not so much about the ruling.
YOUR HYSTERIA is about Sharia Law and the Muslims taking over America!
This would only be conservative hysteria.

You are further convincing me of your ignorance, I did not mention Sharia law, not once. So why are you attempting to take me to task over something I never mentioned? I doubt you even looked to see who wrote which post.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 12:04:21 PMSO, I was pointing out that CONSERVATIVES are ones that are involved in these case, so you cons GET some REALITY about conservatives!Actually, you have only responded to ONE of my posts (on page one).
You babbled about morality and what year it is.  made little sense and didn't warrant a response.

Your incoherency continues in unrivaled form. So conservatives need to "get some reality" about conservatives because conservatives were involved in the case? I would laugh at this nonsensical point if it were an attempt at trolling, but it seems you are serious which makes this an occasion for pity rather than hilarity.

You should be one to talk about posts making little sense! You made this senseless argument about morality changing over the centuries as some sort of justification for the government to enforce these changing morals you believe in. I made the point that this essentially places you in a position where the morals you hold are necessarily malleable, and moreover it necessitates the government act as the morality police such as in this case where the government is compelling the employer to pay for things he finds objectionable on moral grounds.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 12:04:21 PMmaybe you could point out some "dismantling" of my posts for me.

Go look back at my previous posts in this thread that put your rhetoric to shame, you didn't address any of them. I'm not going to re-type the same posts again for your convenience.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 12:04:21 PMI don't see you addressing the SHARIA LAW IS COMING, that I dismantled for YAWN.

I have no concern about Sharia law coming to America, that was  YAWN's point, something I do not agree with, and yet you seem to have the bias to think that just because you are on a conservative forum that everyone is going to agree on everything? I have no concern over Sharia law being instituted in this country, it will never happen.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 12:04:21 PMSeems it's YOU on Your high horse that needs to be concerned about a fall.

Brilliant comeback, on par with what we can expect from children in grammar school.
Title: Re: Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights
Post by: Darth Fife on November 23, 2012, 08:51:57 PM
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 22, 2012, 07:59:53 PM
Oh really.
How many countries have legalized polygamy?

Nearly all of Africa, and, of course, the Islamic countries of the Middle East, Malyasia, Nyanmar (Burma). Also while Great Britain and Australia don't have laws permitting polygamy, they will recognize polygamist marriages preformed elsewhere.

QuoteBesides, I think "Nice Banks" and Polygamy, are not on the same level, even in conservative land

I simply argued  my support for polygamy the same way you rationalized your support for Sharia compliant financing - it is common in vast amounts of the world.

If you are going to be stupid enough to use the Everybody else is doing it!" argument to justify you position, don't act surprised when you get the "If everybody else were jumping off a bridge would you do that too?" response.